The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - The Occult in the late 19th, early 20th centuries

holyfool33 · #18 (**permalink**) 06-27-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galatians220

Quote:

Originally Posted by holyfool33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galatians220

Steve, please excuse my delay in replying to your post above; I've been pretty busy the last few days and I think I've been remiss in looking at all threads in which someone may have posted a reply to me. Sorry!

Yeah, you probably did see that "Nineteenth Century Occult Revival" article on here, for I've posted the link to it more than once.

Well, I stand corrected if I implied or if it can be reasonably and/or naturally inferred that I said Madame Blavatsky worked with Westcott and Hort in revising the Bible, the one that came out in England in 1881. I know she did not. However, Westcott and Hort were "fellow travelers" of hers.

I guess what I've concluded over all these years is that as you have said, unbelievers have put their hands to revising the Bible. I probably have looked at Jack Moorman's 8,000 revisions article in the past; if so, I will need to revisit it.

The following is something I've had bookmarked for years and I've wanted to share it with ministers, but I've been reluctant because, well, as I said before, I've been ushered out of three Reformed churches for bringing up the Bible versions issue. Here's the article, though: Dear Brother in Christ. . .. It's really a letter, a nice one. You may have already seen it.

In the church of which I'm now a full communicant member, I've been warned to be careful about what I say about Westcott and Hort, to make sure everything I say about them can be substantiated. I take that warning very seriously, and if I sort of tipped over some tables here and violated that warning, I'm sorry and I will refrain from doing it in the future. If I discuss W. and H. again, that is...

Margaret

It seems like your promoting KJV onlyism this is dangerous ground. Also the Westscot and Hort spiritualist argument was used by Gail riplinger possibly one of the most extreme advocates of KJV Onlyism. This can all very easily turn into Ruckmanism the people who's arguments your using are ruckmenites by association or profession and argument.

I don't think you've read any of my other posts on this subject, in which I have consistently, totally and explicitly repudiated Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman. Peter Ruckman is, IMHO and after observing him for years, a flaming idiot and I see no evidence, in anything he's ever written, of any "fruit of the Spirit." (It's okay if you didn't know that I've already denounced Ruckman and Riplinger - I don't expect that anyone should have read all of the other posts in most other threads. Simply no one has the time to do that.)

If I have to say 500 times that I am not in the Riplinger or Ruckman camp, I'll say it.

I have never said on this board or anywhere else that I'm KJV-only. I have said that I am Textus Receptus-only.

If that puts me on "dangerous ground," then I need to rethink a whole lot of things... One thing I won't rethink, though, is my Bible versions position. I admit an absolute passion for the real Word of God and also an antipathy towards arbitary alterations of it for the sheer purpose of making merchandise of it. That's been done over and over again for the past 127 years.

This might be kind of interesting to some people: SermonAudio.com - What's Wrong with the ESV?. I've been sandbagging it, but it's worth listening to.

Margaret

O.k.my mistake and my apologies but it seems like your just playing semantic word games. Also I never said you where a rcukmanite you where using arguments promoted by ruckmenites or extreme KJV Onlyists. If you wanted to argue that the Textus Receptus is most accurate fine. But don't make it the be all and end all of textual criticism. Many Godly men and women have worked on both The NIV and New American Standard bibles. To say that you trust only The Textus Receptus in my opinion frankly is shallow bigotry and favoritism toward a particular text.